Set point
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
More difficult than...what, exactly? No one said it's easy.
...and, it was mice.
Regardless, they were eating ad libitum.
If I had eaten ad libitum I would have gained too.
The "set point" MAY be a thing right after weight loss, I'm not denying that because I would have eaten a lot more if I was just set free without a care about my weight.
I have a brain in my head, so I don't HAVE TO let my desires overwhelm.
Your approach says we're all doomed. I don't believe that is true. I believe in watching what I eat now, yes. Mice don't have that ability, and had I eaten the same as the always/forever thin person in that first year post-weightloss I may have had more body fat than she did. So what? I needed to let my hormones settle back down.
I did not deny biological changes. I said that we have bigger brains than that and if we get past the push to continue eating too much then the hormones will settle.
Otherwise you're telling me I've overcome Nature for 13 years. Where do I go for my prize??
Are we saying the same thing again and arguing over it? I can't tell.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
More difficult than...what, exactly? No one said it's easy.
...and, it was mice.
Regardless, they were eating ad libitum.
If I had eaten ad libitum I would have gained too.
The "set point" MAY be a thing right after weight loss, I'm not denying that because I would have eaten a lot more if I was just set free without a care about my weight.
I have a brain in my head, so I don't HAVE TO let my desires overwhelm.
Your approach says we're all doomed. I don't believe that is true. I believe in watching what I eat now, yes. Mice don't have that ability, and had I eaten the same as the always/forever thin person in that first year post-weightloss I may have had more body fat than she did. So what? I needed to let my hormones settle back down.
I did not deny biological changes. I said that we have bigger brains than that and if we get past the push to continue eating too much then the hormones will settle.
Otherwise you're telling me I've overcome Nature for 13 years. Where do I go for my prize?? Are we saying the same thing again and arguing over it? I can't tell.
Not arguing at all. I think this one of several studies is not doom and gloom at all, it gives up insight in how we can change our adiposity and not be miserable. Even the post obese rats ended with a bodyfat of around 18% vs 11% of controls. Still damn fine change in adiposity and is healthy. Yes, we have the cognitive ability to hold off hunger when food is available and rats dont, but some folks, not you, denied that our brains fight back.3 -
Unfortunately I've read lots of animal studies but to correlate the same findings in humans doesn't always work out. Aspartame studies on rats kept showing issues including cancer, but I have yet to read one where when applied to a human, the results were similar.psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Unfortunately I've read lots of animal studies but to correlate the same findings in humans doesn't always work out. Aspartame studies on rats kept showing issues including cancer, but I have yet to read one where when applied to a human, the results were similar.psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes, but look at how much aspartame they were giving those animals in comparison to total body weight. Just l like there are studies that show that artificial sweeteners made rats eat more. Look at human studies and it seems to decrease caloric load. No, not every study done in rats transfers to humans, but, there are studies in pigs and humans that seem to back that there is a biological set range per environment. So, do habits matter? *kitten* yeah, but does genetics and prior weight history influence it? *kitten* yeah.6 -
I have a general idea of what set point means, and here's my interpretation: It's how our genetics influence our weight, whether that's in terms of how much muscle mass we are genetically predisposed to carry, how we handle stress, our BMR, or our natural build/body frame, for example. We can't discount genetics when it comes to our weight and health, we just can't. However, as with anything else related to our health, there's the influence of our environment: from how we were raised, how our diet was influenced by our family growing up, external stress factors, etc. I absolutely believe that genetics will make it harder for some to reach and maintain weight (and that includes how our brains are hardwired as well), just as genetic predisposition can make it harder for some to moderate addictive substances. However, that's not saying that we can't alter our environment, change our habits and mindset, etc., to reach and maintain a healthy weight and to blame our weight on genetics (or "set point") is also not a healthy approach.3
-
@ninerbuff , have you ever bulked?0
-
cmriverside wrote: »I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
That's encouraging. Based on what I'm seeing, your body takes time for your hormones into homeostasis after a weight loss. Your N=1 study supports that. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard literature into setpoint theory much less effective weight loss with applied set point reset principles. That said, we might see more data eventually. My gut feeling though is that your personal experience is likely representative of most people. It takes time for your body to settle in a set up housekeeping at a new weight. Until then, it can be a bit of a struggle.
There is some theorizing that the sustained metabolic drop for Biggest Loser contestants is a result of their heavy exercise loading. https://npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor But without that activity level their metabolism would have rebounded allowing for a more typical caloric intake.
1 -
if set point theory is true and we can all only lose weight toa set point - how come all the WW2 POW's lost so much weight??
every single one of them cant have had a set point of BMI 16 or so which the general population does not8 -
paperpudding wrote: »if set point theory is true and we can all only lose weight toa set point - how come all the WW2 POW's lost so much weight??
every single one of them cant have had a set point of BMI 16 or so which the general population does not
Exactly! We might have a comfort eating point, a point at which we naturally and most comfortably eat at, but I'd hazard a guess that this is mostly an acquired habit rather than something dna dictates.2 -
Set point theory isn't that you "can't" lose weight past a certain point. It's that your body resists; you feel hungrier, your energy is poor, you sleep poorly, and your metabolism adapts making weight loss more uncomfortable and the likelihood of weight rebounding due to appetite is quite high. It would be so easy if life was a simple CICO, but it's more complicated than that.2
-
paperpudding wrote: »if set point theory is true and we can all only lose weight toa set point - how come all the WW2 POW's lost so much weight??
every single one of them cant have had a set point of BMI 16 or so which the general population does not
Exactly! We might have a comfort eating point, a point at which we naturally and most comfortably eat at, but I'd hazard a guess that this is mostly an acquired habit rather than something dna dictates.
Yes, I had a comfort eating set point
I work around it by eating more fruit and less higher calorie baked goods, filling up on bulky, low calories veggies, and hitting my protein and fiber goals.
Also, exercising more gives me a larger calorie budget.
When I had an active job and lifestyle I didn't have to pay much attention to what I ate, but when I started desk jobs I did.5 -
cmriverside wrote: »I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
That's encouraging. Based on what I'm seeing, your body takes time for your hormones into homeostasis after a weight loss. Your N=1 study supports that. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard literature into setpoint theory much less effective weight loss with applied set point reset principles. That said, we might see more data eventually. My gut feeling though is that your personal experience is likely representative of most people. It takes time for your body to settle in a set up housekeeping at a new weight. Until then, it can be a bit of a struggle.
There is some theorizing that the sustained metabolic drop for Biggest Loser contestants is a result of their heavy exercise loading. https://npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor But without that activity level their metabolism would have rebounded allowing for a more typical caloric intake.
While I don't think the research bought into setpoint theory as a foundation, it seems like the research on diet breaks, refeeds, etc., would be something like "applied set point reset principles" in that it seems to involve targeting hormonal resets during the weight loss process and that sort of thing.
I'm not going to link a bunch of stuff, but there's extensive discussion (and some links to sources with research cites) in this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
There are a lot of critiques of that BL study, beyond the one in the article you linked. The BL people used extreme measures to lose (maybe more likely to cause extreme adaptation?), there's some speculation that because they knew they were in a follow-up study they did things that affected the outcomes, etc.
In general, I don't feel like studying extreme outliers is necessarily a good way to understand what happens in more common cases. IIRC, studies on common cases suggest something more like riverside's experience, or in some cases maybe even less dramatic.
I'm sure I'm biased by not feeling like my body was fighting back in some major way, at goal weight. (I did feel like my revamped thinner-person habits became more automatic, harder to override, sometime between year 1 and year 2-ish, but that could be more about habit establishment generally vs. bodyweight specifically. Or maybe lemur's idea is right, that exercise to some extent counters leptin resistance. (It's somewhere between anecdotal and statistical, but the National Weight Control Registry seems to suggest that keeping movement in the picture is in some way helpful.))Set point theory isn't that you "can't" lose weight past a certain point. It's that your body resists; you feel hungrier, your energy is poor, you sleep poorly, and your metabolism adapts making weight loss more uncomfortable and the likelihood of weight rebounding due to appetite is quite high. It would be so easy if life was a simple CICO, but it's more complicated than that.
Admitting a prejudice up front here: It bothers me when people use "you" language in cases like this.
What set point theory is, depends on whose version of set point theory we're talking about. Certainly, occasionally there seem to be people who post here who believe that extreme version, i.e., "can't lose past a certain point".
As far as the bolded stuff:
Might those things happen? Sure.
Should people think about using weight-loss strategies that might minimize the risks, or moderate the effects? Sure.
Are they universally going to happen? I don't think so, personally. Why might they not, for some? Dunno.
I feel like there are also different versions of "CICO theory" (a term I wouldn't normally use): Occasionally there seem to be people who post here who believe CICO itself means an extreme version such as "get an estimate from a calculator, comply (or attempt to); succeed per estimates if compliant; CICO fails if any other outcome, including inability to comply".
I don't think CICO is that simple, in terms of applying the calorie balance equation (which isn't the same as calorie counting, exactly). If nothing else, human bodies are dynamic. Adaptive thermogenesis exists. Sometimes eating too little results in slower than expected loss. Sometimes eating a little more will improve energy level and perceived results. CI affects CO, IOW.
That's without even getting into psychological (and a few physical) aspects of being human that I don't think CICO (the calorie balance equation) or basic calorie counting mechanics were ever intended to address. I'm talking about emotional eating, guilt, boredom eating, etc. . . . maybe even satiation or nutrition or exercise fatigue. Those things can dramatically affect success or failure in weight management, but I don't think CICO (the equation) touches them, or should be expected to. Successful calorie counting relies on a person getting a handle on them, but doesn't (taken alone) suggest solutions.
There's more to weight loss than calories, as a practical thing; but in a strict sense, calories do determine weight.
Personally, I don't mostly believe in set point theory (weak or strong version). I think there are integrated sets of habits that are easier or harder for a particular person to sustain, and that finding personalized habits that result in a healthy weight is pretty crucial. I'm sure there are also physiological variables that make weight management harder or easier, that vary in different circumstances, and may vary with genetics.3 -
I don't find a set point making me eat. I'm pretty sure it is my love of food fun and recreation. Were the mice eating pizza and having cocktails?3
-
Set point theory isn't that you "can't" lose weight past a certain point. It's that your body resists; you feel hungrier, your energy is poor, you sleep poorly, and your metabolism adapts making weight loss more uncomfortable and the likelihood of weight rebounding due to appetite is quite high. It would be so easy if life was a simple CICO, but it's more complicated than that.
It really is a simple CICO, though.
CICO is simply a math equation - "CICO" is calories in calories out - that's why you are getting all the "Disagree" reactions from other members.
All the psychological and biological nuances are not part of a math equation.
3 -
I absolutely believed in a set point (past tense). I was raised to believe that my Polish genes and larger skeletal structure (compared to five sisters) was the reason that I was the "big" girl of the group. Until I started weighing my food...
And as a result, making my portions smaller. And figuring out how many calories I *wanted* vs. how many I *needed*. Then I didn't believe in a set point weight anymore. I was shocked that at 47, I could lose 22 pounds, when I "hadn't been able to" lose even five every other time I tried. Math is not my strong suit, but I can calculate CICO, and it works. 6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions